project acronym and title: m4shalegas - measuring ... - d10.5...shale gas is – by definition – a...
Post on 15-Sep-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Project Acronym and Title:
M4ShaleGas - Measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing
the environmental impact of shale gas
Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations in Europe
Authors and affiliation:
Ewa Kukulska-Zając1, Anna Król1, Marta Dobrzańska1,
Monika Gajec1, Jadwiga Holewa-Rataj1, Justyna Mostowska-Stąsiek1
1 Oil and Gas Institute - National Research Institute
E-mail of lead author:
kukulska@inig.pl
D10.5
Status: definitive
Disclaimer This report is part of a project that has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement number 640715.
The content of this report reflects only the authors’ view. The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Published December 2017 by M4ShaleGas Consortium
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Public introduction
M4ShaleGas stands for Measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of
shale gas and is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.
The main goal of the M4ShaleGas project is to study and evaluate potential risks and impacts of shale
gas exploration and exploitation. The focus lies on four main areas of potential impact: the subsurface,
the surface, the atmosphere, and social impacts.
The European Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the
transformation of the energy system in the direction of lower CO2 emissions and more renewable
energy. Shale gas may contribute to this transformation.
Shale gas is – by definition – a natural gas found trapped in shale, a fine grained sedimentary rock
composed of mud. There are several concerns related to shale gas exploration and production, many of
them being associated with hydraulic fracturing operations that are performed to stimulate gas flow in
the shales. Potential risks and concerns include for example the fate of chemical compounds in the used
hydraulic fracturing and drilling fluids and their potential impact on shallow ground water. The
fracturing process may also induce small magnitude earthquakes. There is also an ongoing debate on
greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas (CO2 and methane) and its energy efficiency compared to other
energy sources
There is a strong need for a better European knowledge base on shale gas operations and their
environmental impacts particularly, if shale gas shall play a role in Europe’s energy mix in the coming
decennia. M4ShaleGas’ main goal is to build such a knowledge base, including an inventory of best
practices that minimise risks and impacts of shale gas exploration and production in Europe, as well as
best practices for public engagement.
The M4ShaleGas project is carried out by 18 European research institutions and is coordinated by TNO-
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.
Executive Report Summary
Proper management of drilling wastes generated during shale gas operations is a crucial issue while
considering safety of natural environment, mainly due to the fact that they are new, hardly recognized
waste in Europe.
In Europe there are currently no explicit requirements and legal regulations concerning the management
of waste from exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons deposits, at both the EU
level and the individual Member State level. Those countries rely mainly on the general mining and
environmental legislation transposing the EU legislation and related permitting procedures to regulate
such activities, as they do for conventional gas extraction.
Waste generated during exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits is usually
not inert waste and often indicates (depending on concentrations of individual substances and chemicals
contained in them) toxic or very toxic properties to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse
effects in the aquatic environment. Flowback water is characterized by a slightly acidic pH index,
varying amounts of suspended solids and organic compounds, significant amounts of salt and other
components associated with the geological structure of the rock.
Correct classification of waste (flowback and produced water) is very important for proper further waste
management. However, there are currently no uniform guidelines for classifying this type of waste. In
Poland, flowback and produced water has so far been classified under code 01 05 99, i. e. as wastes not
otherwise specified, and in the UK as waste under code 01 01 02, i. e. wastes from mineral non-
metalliferous excavation. Of course, if flowback or produced water contains hazardous substances or
components, then they should be classified as hazardous waste.
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Recommended, based on the results of this project, the scope of the determinations for testing flowback
water for potential environmental impact should include: pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS),
total suspended solids (TSS), dry residue, total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), metals (including heavy metals), inorganic anions, hydrocarbons
(including mono- and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), phenol index, ammonia nitrogen or total
nitrogen, anionic surfactants, petroleum ether extract or chloroform extract and alcohols. In addition,
when analysing samples of flowback water, it is also important to use an analytical method, which
should have a properly defined limit of quantification and uncertainty, which allows correct comparison
of obtained test results with e. g. regulatory criteria and results from different laboratories. The realized
project has also shown that further testing is needed to develop a flowback water sampling procedure for
laboratory testing and to develop guidance on analytical methods dedicated to the determination of
individual substances and components in these fluids with very complex matrixes.
There are several possibilities for managing waste generated during the exploration and exploitation of
unconventional hydrocarbons deposits. Reuse of flowback water on site in the next hydraulic fracturing
process is a preferable one. Only the proper treatment/disposal of these fluids will guarantee safety for
people and the environment.
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Context of M4ShaleGas ..................................................................................... 2
1.1 Study objectives for this report ........................................................................... 3
1.2 Aims of this report .............................................................................................. 3
2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS CONNECTED WITH WASTE GENERATED DURING
SHALE GAS OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 4
3 COMPOSITION OF WASTE FROM SHALE GAS OPERATIONS – LITERATURE
AND LABORATORY DATA ...................................................................................... 7
3.1 Drilling wastes .................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Flowback water .................................................................................................. 9
4 MANAGEMENT OF LIQUID WASTE FROM SHALE GAS OPERATION .......... 13
4.1 Flowback and produced water classification .................................................... 13
4.2 Flowback water quality tests ............................................................................ 14
4.3 Further management of waste........................................................................... 17
5 RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 19
6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 21
Page 2
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context of M4ShaleGas
Shale gas source rocks are widely distributed around the world and many countries have now
started to investigate their shale gas potential. Some argue that shale gas has already proved to
be a game changer in the U.S. energy market (EIA 20151). The European Commission's
Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical energy source for the transformation of the
energy system to a system with lower CO2 emissions that combines gas with increasing
contributions of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency. It may be argued that in
Europe, natural gas replacing coal and oil will contribute to emissions reduction on the short
and medium terms.
There are, however, several concerns related to shale gas exploration and production, many of
them being associated with the process of hydraulic fracturing. There is also a debate on the
greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas (CO2 and methane) and its energy return on investment
compared to other energy sources. Questions are raised about the specific environmental
footprint of shale gas in Europe as a whole as well as in individual Member States. Shale gas
basins are unevenly distributed among the European Member States and are not restricted
within national borders, which makes close cooperation between the involved Member States
essential. There is relatively little knowledge on the footprint in regions with a variety of
geological and geopolitical settings as are present in Europe. Concerns and risks are clustered
in the following four areas: subsurface, surface, atmosphere and society. As the European
continent is densely populated, it is most certainly of vital importance to understand public
perceptions of shale gas and for European publics to be fully engaged in the debate about its
potential development.
Accordingly, Europe has a strong need for a comprehensive knowledge base on potential
environmental, societal and economic consequences of shale gas exploration and exploitation.
Knowledge needs to be science-based, needs to be developed by research institutes with a
strong track record in shale gas studies, and needs to cover the different attitudes and
approaches to shale gas exploration and exploitation in Europe. The M4ShaleGas project is
seeking to provide such a scientific knowledge base, integrating the scientific outcome of 18
research institutes across Europe. It addresses the issues raised in the Horizon 2020 call LCE
16 – 2014 on Understanding, preventing and mitigating the potential environmental risks and
impacts of shale gas exploration and exploitation.
1 EIA (2015). Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with projections to 2040. U.S. Energy Information Administration
(www.eia.gov).
Page 3
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
1.1 Study objectives for this report
Summary of existing European legal regulations on the management of extractive waste,
including waste from exploration for and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon
deposits. Summary of data (literature and laboratory) on the quality characteristics of shale
gas operations waste (solid and liquid). Presentation of guidelines for environmentally safe
management of liquid waste resulting from the exploration and exploitation of unconventional
hydrocarbon deposits.
1.2 Aims of this report
The aim of this report is to present the results of analyses and studies obtained during the
WP10 (Composition and management of different types of waste) task in the M4ShaleGas
project. The report collects the results of research on the qualitative composition of waste
generated during exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits, as
well as guidelines for the proper management of this type of waste. The results obtained
should contribute to the minimization of environmental impact and avoid potential hazards
associated with the generation of waste during shale gas operations.
Page 4
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS CONNECTED WITH WASTE
GENERATED DURING SHALE GAS OPERATIONS
At European Union level the extractive waste management is regulated by Directive
2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the
management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
(Directive 2006/21/EC), which entered into force on 1 May 2006. Directive 2006/21/EC
provides for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possible any
adverse effects on the environment, in particular water, air, soil, fauna and flora and
landscape, and any resultant risks to human health, brought about as a result of the
management of waste from the extractive industries. Directive covers the management of
waste resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources
and the working of quarries. The following, however, were excluded from the scope of this
Directive:
waste which is generated by the prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral
resources and the working of quarries, but which does not directly result from those
operations,
waste resulting from the offshore prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral
resources,
injection of water and re-injection of pumped groundwater.
Without prejudice to other Community legislation, waste which falls within the scope of this
Directive shall not be subject to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
landfill of waste (Council Directive 1999/31/EC).
The Directive also defines the requirements for:
waste management plan drawn up for the minimization, treatment, recovery and
disposal of extractive waste, taking account of the principle of sustainable
development. The objectives of the waste management plan shall be to prevent or
reduce waste production and its harmfulness, to encourage the recovery of extractive
waste by means of recycling, reusing or reclaiming such waste, where this is
environmentally sound in accordance with existing environmental standards at
Community level and with the requirements of this Directive where relevant and to
ensure short and long-term safe disposal of the extractive waste;
informing about major accidents and preventing them – Member States shall ensure
that major-accident hazards are identified and that the necessary features are
incorporated into the design, construction, operation and maintenance, closure and
after-closure of the waste facility in order to prevent such accidents and to limit their
adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment, including any
transboundary impacts;
filling excavation voids – Member States shall ensure that the operator, when placing
extractive waste back into the excavation voids for rehabilitation and construction
purposes, whether created through surface or underground extraction, takes
appropriate measures in order to secure the stability of the extractive waste, prevent
the pollution of soil, surface water and groundwater, ensure the monitoring of the
extractive waste and the excavation void;
Page 5
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
waste facilities with regard to their construction and management, as well as their
closure and post-closure procedures - facility operator should ensure that the waste
facility is suitably located, suitably constructed, managed and maintained, there are
suitable plans and arrangements for regular monitoring and inspection by competent
persons and for taking action in the event of results indicating instability or water or
soil contamination. Suitable arrangements are made for the rehabilitation of the land
and the closure and after-closure phase of the waste facility.
Directive 2006/21/EC is supplemented by five published decisions that clarify its provisions:
Commission Decision 2009/335/EC of 20 April 2009 on technical guidelines for the
establishment of the financial guarantee in accordance with Directive 2006/21/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of waste from
extractive industries (Commission Decision 2009/335/EC),
Commission Decision 2009/337/EC of 20 April 2009 on the definition of the criteria for
the classification of waste facilities in accordance with Annex III of Directive 2006/21/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of waste from
extractive industries (Commission Decision 2009/337/EC),
Commission Decision 2009/358/EC of 29 April 2009 on the harmonisation, the regular
transmission of the information and the questionnaire referred to Articles 22(1)(a) and 18
of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
management of waste from extractive industries (Commission Decision 2009/358/EC),
Commission Decision 2009/359/EC of 30 April 2009 completing the definition of inert
waste in implementation of Article 22(1)(f) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council concerning the management of waste from extractive
industries (Commission Decision 2009/359/EC),
Commission Decision 2009/360/EC of 30 April 2009 completing the technical
requirements for waste characterisation laid down by Directive 2006/21/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the management of waste from extractive
industries (Commission Decision 2009/360/EC).
Currently, the majority of Member States of the European Union rely mainly on the general
mining and environmental legislation transposing the EU legislation and related permitting
procedures to regulate such activities, as they do for gas extraction from conventional
hydrocarbons deposits. None of the countries assessed provide specific requirements for the
management of waste derived from hydraulic fracturing. They rely mainly on the national
legislation transposing the EU waste from extractive industries legislation. However, the
selected Member States do not have a common view on the applicability of the Directive
2006/21/EC to this type of waste. There are major differences between Member States and
uncertainties as to the legislation and requirements applicable to the management of waste
resulting from shale gas operations. Selected EU Member States have different approaches to
the injection of liquid wastes resulting from shale gas operations, underground disposal or
reuse in subsequent fracturing operations. These countries do not have explicit requirements
concerning surface storage of liquid wastes from shale gas operations and treatment and
discharge to surface waters this type of waste.
Page 6
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
The current requirements for the management of waste from exploration for and exploitation
of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits in selected EU member states are described in more
detail in the D10.1 Report (Chapter 5.2) (Kukulska-Zając et al., 2015). The same report also
describes the current and applied in Poland requirements for the management of extractive
waste, including waste from shale gas operations (Kukulska-Zając et al., 2015).
It should be stressed, however, that despite the lack of legal regulations dedicated to waste
from shale gas operations, this type of waste (as flowback or produced water) has been
included in the updated version of the Best Available Techniques Reference Document for the
Management of Waste from the Extractive Industries (MWEI BREF Draft, 2016).
Page 7
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
3 COMPOSITION OF WASTE FROM SHALE GAS OPERATIONS
– LITERATURE AND LABORATORY DATA
Exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits are associated with the
generation of waste, the harmfulness of which to the natural environment varies. Part of this
generated waste is a typical drilling wastes, i.e. drilling cuttings and used drilling mud, which
are well known and characterized. Such waste typically have a semi-solid or solid
consistency. A new kind of waste is associated with hydraulic fracturing (flowback and
produced water). This type of waste is not, however, well characterized in terms of quality. Of
course, apart from waste connected directly with the drilling operations and subsequent
reservoir tests (e.g. extractive wastes), waste from drilling well pad operation, delivery of
services, presence of employees on the drill site etc. is also generated.
The qualitative and quantitative composition of waste generated during shale gas operations
changes widely over time, depending on numerous factors such as, for example, type of
drilling fluid used during drilling, depth and construction of the hole, type of drilled rock
formations, chemical reactions between the rock and the fluid, the time fluid remains in the
borehole and chemicals used in the technological process.
The exact determination of quality of waste generated during exploration and exploitation of
unconventional hydrocarbon deposits is very important. Knowledge of the content of
particular chemical substances in this type of wastes, especially hazardous substances, allows
further sound management of such wastes and contributes to minimizing their negative impact
on the environment and human health. It should be noted that regardless of the type of
generated mining waste, a further way of their management should be done in accordance
with the applicable laws and issued decisions.
Little information is publicly available about the qualitative composition of waste generated
during exploration of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits. Characterization of waste
connected with shale gas operations has been reported in the literature in various degrees of
detail. In the further part of this chapter, data (both literature and laboratory) on the quality
characteristics of shale gas operations waste were collected from the project.
3.1 Drilling wastes
Table 1 shows the results of physicochemical parameter designations for drilling waste
samples from exploration of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits in Poland (data from
Lubocino, Stare Miasto, Wysin, Gapowo, Syczyn and Zawada). The table shows the results
obtained for the solid phase of drilling waste (total content of a given component in the waste
is designated) and the leaching tests results (the amount of ingredient, which may enter the
environment as a result of washing out of the waste, is designated).
Page 8
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Table 1. Summary of the most frequently designated physicochemical parameters in drilling waste
samples from Poland (based on Środowisko i prace rozpoznawcze dotyczące gazu z łupków; wyniki
badań środowiska gruntowo-wodnego, powietrza, klimatu akustycznego, płynów technologicznych i
odpadów [The environment and shale gas exploration. Results of studies on the soil-water
environment, ambient air, acoustic climate, process fluids and wastes], 2015, Kukulska-Zając et al.,
2016).
No. Determined parameter
Range of changes of designated parameter
total content leachable form
[mg/kg DW]
1. antimony (Sb) 0.03-10.0 2.90·10-2-0.11
2. arsenic (As) 2.10-14.7 1.28·10-2-0.13
3. bar (Ba) 455-2,836 1.40·10-2-0.76
4. beryllium (Be) 0.40-2.80 2.80·10-4-3.09·10-3
5. boron (B) 0.50-33.1 1.97·10-2-6.20·10-2
6. chromium (Cr) 31.8-95.4 7.60·10-4-5.33·10-3
7. tin (Sn) 2.50-24.7 2.56·10-3-6.63·10-2
8. zinc (Zn) 53.4-313 2.56·10-2-8.70·10-2
9. aluminium (Al) 18,370-48,113 5.85·10-3-1.12
10. cadmium (Cd) 0.10-5.30 8.60·10-4-5.28·10-2
11. cobalt (Co) 6.40-19.3 2.80·10-3-1.20·10-2
12. lithium (Li) 18.6-31.5 -
13. magnesium (Mg) 8,432-29,969 -
14. manganese (Mn) 363-1,448 1.39·10-3-0.34
15. copper (Cu) 27.6-106 1.15·10-4-1.80·10-2
16. molybdenum (Mo) 0.20-10.9 4.10·10-3-8.20·10-2
17. nickel (Ni) 27.5-71.3 1.20·10-3-1.20·10-2
18. lead (Pb) 5.80-91.5 5.50·10-3-3.84·10-2
19. potassium (K) 6,794-22,248 3.20-17,400
20. mercury (Hg) 0.02-0.30 <10-6-4.60·10-2
21. selenium (Se) 0.10-1.80 8.70·10-2-2.05
22. sodium (Na) 1,948-44,987 365-23,585
23. silver (Ag) 0.00-0.60 2.81·10-4-7.90·10-3
24. strontium (Sr) 87.7-582 2.41·10-2-0.39
25. thallium (Tl) 0.10-2.50 1.81·10-2-0.11
26. titanium (Ti) 4.70-115 1.10·10-4-3.60·10-3
27. vanadium (V) 47.4-231 3.20·10-3-5.02·10-2
28. calcium (Ca) 20,209-62,543 200-3,206
29. iron (Fe) 20,812-66,476 7.00·10-3-0.15
30. ammonium nitrogen (NNH4+) 37.6-267 <0.25-55.0
31. bromine, bromides (Br) - 2.20-509
32. chlorides (Cl-) - 1,418-44,676
33. fluorides (F-) 29-698 10.1-264
34. sulphates (SO42-) - 18.6-466
35. hydrogencarbonates (HCO3-) - 610-6,834
Page 9
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
No. Determined parameter
Range of changes of designated parameter
total content leachable form
[mg/kg DW]
36. total dissolved solids (TDS) - 5,306-78,921
37. phenol index <0.5-7.00 <0.01-1.70
38. total organic carbon (TOC) 3,058-40,650 510-9,380
39. dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 1,113-10,190 430-7,280
40. surfactants (anionic) 9.00-64.6 <0.20-8.40
41. chemical oxygen demand (COD) 7,950-110,229 1,080-24,400
42. gasoline (total) 3.25-211 1.94-29.4
43. mineral oils (total) 99.8-1,541 4.08-236
44. aliphatic hydrocarbons 212-1,591 6.15-242
45. aromatic hydrocarbons 1.08-70.2 0.65-9.80
46. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) <0.001-0.446 <10-6-2.40
47. pH reaction pH
7.49-9.65
48. specific conductance [mS/cm]
7.68-5,600
49. acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) [mg CaCO3/kg s.m.]
10.0-5,600
< indicates results below the limit of quantification
- indicates no available data/no designation
DW - Dry Weight (Dry Basis)
An analysis of the data collected in Table 1 shows that the content of individual organic and
inorganic components in the drilling wastes (total content and amount of substance leached
from waste) and the values of the measured parameters can vary in a wide range. Significant
differences in scope are related to the type of drilling mud used and the prevailing deposit
conditions. Drilling wastes are characterized by a fairly high pH, high content of chloride ions
and high content of metals such as Al, Mg, K, Na, Ca and Fe. The content of total dissolved
solids (TDS) is also high in this type of waste, as well as content of total and dissolved
organic carbon (TOC and DOC) and hydrocarbons. A detailed analysis of the composition of
drilling wastes is presented in Report D10.2 (Chapter 3.2) (Kukulska-Zając et al., 2016).
3.2 Flowback water
Table 2, on the other hand, presents the results of laboratory tests of samples of flowback
water (from one of the drilling rigs in Poland) obtained as part of this project with the results
of tests for this type of waste available in literature (data from Europe, mainly Poland).
Page 10
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Table 2. Comparison of results of laboratory samples of flowback water with results for this type of
waste available in literature (based on Olsson et al.; 2013, Środowisko i prace rozpoznawcze
dotyczące gazu z łupków; wyniki badań środowiska gruntowo-wodnego, powietrza, klimatu
akustycznego, płynów technologicznych i odpadów [The environment and shale gas exploration.
Results of studies on the soil-water environment, ambient air, acoustic climate, process fluids and
wastes], 2015; Granops et al., 2013; Klimkiewicz and Korczak, 2012; Starzycka, 2012; Starzycka,
2014; Kukulska-Zając et al., 2016; Kukulska-Zając et al., 2017).
Lp. Determined parameter Range of changes of designated parameter
Laboratory data Literature data
1 density [kg/l] 1.067 – 1.089 -
2 pH 6.4 – 6.8 5.7-7.4
3 specific conductance [mS/cm] 115 – 151 11.9-123
4 dry residue [mg/l] 107,300 – 166,210 -
5 total dissolved solids (TDS) [mg/l] 103,780 – 161,820 -
6 total suspended solids (TSS) [mg/l] 112 – 279 168
7 chemical oxygen demand (COD) [mgO2/l] 536 – 1,402 307-6,230
8 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
[mgO2/l]
2,904 – 3,712 2,416
9 petroleum ether extract [mg/l] <10.0 – 87.0 -
10 chloroform extract [mg/l] <2.00 – 54.0 -
11 total organic carbon (TOC) [mg/l] 170 – 350 11.0-1,680
12 dissolved organic carbon (DOC) [mg/l] 170 – 350 99.0-1,193
13 hydrocarbons C1-C5 [mg/l] 0.010 – 1.28 -
14 hydrocarbons C6-C12 [mg/l] <1.00 – 46.4 -
15 hydrocarbons C12-C35 [mg/l] <10.0 – 1,560 -
16 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [mg/l] <0.40 -
17 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [mg/l] 1.50·10-4-2.10·10-3 <5.00·10-6-3.82·10-4
18 methanol [mg/l] <10.0 -
19 ethanol [mg/l] <10.0 – 21.0 -
20 isopropanol [mg/l] <10.0 – 49.2 -
21 aluminium (Al) [mg/l] <1.00 3.00·10-3-3.06·10-2
22 antimony (Sb) [mg/l] <1.00 -
23 arsenic (As) [mg/l] <0.30 5.52·10-3-1.10
24 barium (Ba) [mg/l] 200 – 350 0.00-593
25 cadmium (Cd) [mg/l] <0.01 1.90·10-4-1.20·10-2
26 calcium (Ca) [mg/l] 4,850 – 8,040 0.23-22,000
27 chromium (Cr) [mg/l] <0.10 – 0.16 0.30
28 cobalt (Co) [mg/l] <0.01 6.16·10-4-3.01·10-3
29 copper (Cu)[mg/l] <0.01 -
30 iron (Fe) [mg/l] 36.0 – 64.0 5.27·10-3-500
31 lead (Pb) [mg/l] <0.10 – 0.23 0.30-55.0
32 magnesium (Mg) [mg/l] 613 – 1,080 0.93-2,170
33 manganese (Mn) [mg/l] 7.30 – 11.0 1.00-38.0
34 mercury (Hg) [mg/l] <0.0005 – 0.0011 -
35 molybdenum (Mo) [mg/l] <0.10 – 0.41 -
Page 11
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Lp. Determined parameter Range of changes of designated parameter
Laboratory data Literature data
36 nickel (Ni) [mg/l] <0.10 – 0.40 0.30-1.00
37 potassium (K) [mg/l] 582 - 993 1.67-7,510
38 selenium (Se) [mg/l] <1.00 -
39 sodium (Na) [mg/l] 27,740 – 70,690 0.84-44,800
40 strontium (Sr) [mg/l] 870 – 2,000 8.80·10-4-1,720
41 tin (Sn) [mg/l] <0.20 – 1.10 -
42 vanadium (V) [mg/l] <0.30 -
43 zinc (Zn) [mg/l] <0.10 – 0.85 6.79·10-4-290
44 bromides (Br-) [mg/l] 624 – 967 25.0-500
45 carbonates (CO32-) [mg/l] <6.00 -
46 chlorides (Cl-) [mg/l] 55,122 – 81,456 3,800-115,140
47 fluorides (F-) [mg/l] 2.30– 21.7 0.50-6.10
48 hydrogencarbonates (HCO3-) [mg/l] 137 – 326 166-509
49 nitrates(V) (NO3-) [mg/l] <10.0 -
50 phosphates (PO43-) [mg/l] <10.0 -
51 sulphates (SO42-) [mg/l] 26.0 – 49.0 4.00-1,100
52 sulphide [mg/l] <0.10 -
53 butanethiol [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.62 -
54 carbon disulphide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.11 -
55 carbonyl sulphide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.13 -
56 diethyl sulphide [mg/l] <0.001 -
57 dimethyl disulphide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.22 -
58 dimethyl sulphide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.23 -
59 ethanethiol [mg/l] <0.001 -
60 hydrogen sulphide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.03 -
61 methanethiol [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.07 -
62 methylthioethane [mg/l] <0.001 -
63 propanethiol [mg/l] <0.001 -
64 sulphur dioxide [mg/l] <0.001 – 0.16 -
65 phenol index [mg/l] <0.008 – 0.02 -
66 anionic surfactants [mg/l] 0.13 – 0.39 <0.50-31.0
67 ammonia nitrogen [mg/l] 80.0 – 104 9.00-159
68 isodrin [µg/l] <0.03 – <0.06 -
- indicates no available data/no designation
The analysis of the data presented in Table 2 shows that the chemical composition of
flowback water is characterised by a high variability in qualitative terms. Of course, not only
the composition of the fracturing fluid, but also rock formations into which the fracturing
fluid is injected, have a big influence on the content of individual components in the fluid.
Flowback water has a pH in the range of 5.7-7.4 and contains significant amounts of chloride
ions as well as metals such as Ba, Ca, Mg, K and Na. The total dissolved solids (TDS) content
in characterized fluids is also high. A detailed analysis of the results of laboratory test results
Page 12
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
of flowback water samples was presented broadly in Report D10.3 (Kukulska-Zając et al.,
2017).
The results presented in Table 2 also show that so far, the physical parameters (pH and
specific conductance) and some organic and inorganic components were determined in the
samples of flowback water. Among the inorganic components identified in this type of waste,
there are mainly metals (including heavy metals) and anions (bromides, chlorides, fluorides,
hydrogencarbonates and sulphates). The organic components determined in the samples of
flowback water are hydrocarbons, total and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC), as
well as chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and anionic
surfactants. As shown in the table, these are not all components that may be present in this
type of samples. In addition, as shown by the research carried out as part of this project,
samples of flowback water may also contain alcohols, sulphur compounds and a broader
spectrum of metals than those already determined. However, it should be noted that
laboratory tests of flowback water samples are largely in line with literature reports and
differences such as e. g. as regards the determination of the content of chemical oxygen
demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), Ca, Fe, Mg, K,
Zn, sulphates and anionic surfactants may be associated with various quality of hydraulic
fracturing fluids and the type of rock formations to be drilled. These differences may also
result from various ways of sampling and sample preparation before testing, as well as
differences in analytical methods (see Report D10.3) (Kukulska-Zając et al., 2017).
Page 13
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
4 MANAGEMENT OF LIQUID WASTE FROM SHALE GAS
OPERATION
The issue of rational waste management, including drilling wastes, has been at the centre of
the European Union's environmental policy for many years. The primary objective of the
Union's policy in this area is to prevent waste from arising first and, in the case of waste that
cannot be prevented from arising, reuse as far as possible, recycling and recovery, but only
ultimately landfilling.
The common feature of exploration for and exploitation of hydrocarbons from conventional
and unconventional deposits is the drilling of a vertical well and the production of the same
type of drilling wastes, the main components of which are drilling cuttings and used drilling
mud. The management of such waste does not pose any significant problems, as it is a waste
that is well known and the companies conducting drilling have many years of experience in
this field.
The challenge is the proper management of liquid waste (flowback and produced water)
associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas operations. Firstly, it results from the
fact that large amounts of waste are generated during such operations. Secondly, it is related
to the characteristics of generated waste, primarily with their complex and varied chemical
composition, ecotoxicity and state of consistency (liquid or semi-liquid). Thirdly, the
environmental impact of shale gas operations waste, including soil, surface and groundwater,
is still poorly recognised in Europe. Proper management of waste generated during
exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits, requires a reliable data
on the quantity and quality of this waste. Having such information will contribute to
increasing environmental safety, e. g. as a result of accidental release, as well as an
improperly planned and conducted process of shale gas operations waste treatment or storage.
Flowback water is produced when the hydraulic fracturing procedure is completed and
pressure is released. Composition of flowback water is related to the composition of the initial
fracturing fluid, the composition of the natural formation water of the shale and the possible
interactions between fracturing fluid and shale system over time at the in-situ conditions.
Initially this water, called flowback, is mostly fracturing fluid, but with time it becomes more
similar to the natural formation water, e. g. there is an increase in salinity, and decrease in
DOC (Cluff et al., 2014). This later stage water is also called a produced water. However, it
should be added here that there is no clear line between flowback and produced water. In
addition, it is important to be aware that the produced water from shale gas operations is
different from the typical deposit water generated during the exploration and exploitation of
conventional hydrocarbon deposits.
4.1 Flowback and produced water classification
Bearing in mind that the waste associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas
operations is a new type of waste in Europe and its correct classification is very important, as
it will ensure proper handling of this type of waste. In the European Union, waste is classified
according to the Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision
2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council (Commission Decision 2014/955/EU). The Annex to that
Decision contains a List of Waste, allowing for the classification of different types of waste.
Page 14
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
The different types of waste in the list are fully defined by the six-digit code for the waste and
the respective two-digit and four-digit chapter headings. According to the List of Waste,
extractive waste should be classified as chapter 01, i. e. waste resulting from exploration,
mining, quarrying, and physical and chemical treatment of minerals. On the other hand,
drilling wastes and drilling muds for chapter 01 05, i. e. drilling muds and other drilling
waste, obviously taking into account their properties.
Unfortunately, however, there is no specific code in the current List of Waste that can be
arbitrarily assigned to shale gas operations waste, i. e. flowback and produced water.
Therefore, correct classification of this type of waste can be problematic as it is based only on
the opinion of the waste producer. Until now, waste such as flowback and produced water has
been classified in Poland most often as waste of code 01 05 99, i. e. wastes not otherwise
specified, in chapter 01 05, i. e. drilling muds and other drilling wastes (Środowisko i prace
rozpoznawcze dotyczące gazu z łupków; wyniki badań środowiska gruntowo-wodnego,
powietrza, klimatu akustycznego, płynów technologicznych i odpadów [The environment and
shale gas exploration. Results of studies on the soil-water environment, ambient air, acoustic
climate, process fluids and wastes], 2015), while in United Kingdom as waste with code 01
01 02, i. e. wastes from mineral non-metalliferous excavation (Environment Agency, 2016).
However, it should be mentioned that if flowback or produced water contains hazardous
substances or components, waste should be classified as hazardous waste depending on the
concentration of these substances or components in the fluid. Criteria for the classification of
waste as hazardous waste according to its characteristics are set out in Annex III to Directive
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste
and repealing certain Directives (Directive 2008/98/EC). Wastes should be regarded as
hazardous if they have at least one of the following characteristics: explosive, oxidizing,
highly flammable, flammable, irritant, harmful, toxic, carcinogenic, corrosive, infectious,
toxic for reproduction, mutagenic, sensitizing, ecotoxic. Hazardous properties are assigned on
the basis of the criteria in Annex VI to CLP Regulation, i. e. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification,
labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives
67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Regulation
(EC) No 1272/2008).
In Poland, in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment, flowback
water is not considered as waste until it leaves the process line. Where flowback water is
treated on site, the residue from its treatment shall be considered as extractive waste and the
water fraction resulting from the treatment of flowback water suitable for reprocessing in the
fracturing process, even if transferred to another holder, shall not be considered as waste. The
untreated or not for further use flowback water is considered as extractive waste (Możliwości
postępowania z płynem zwrotnym powstałym podczas procesu szczelinowania w kontekście
przepisów z zakresu gospodarki odpadami [Possible handling of flowback water generated
during the fracturing process in the context of waste management regulations], 2014).
4.2 Flowback water quality tests
Flowback water generated during hydraulic fracturing processes should be tested to determine
its characteristics and potential risks to the environment in the event of uncontrolled leakage,
both the waste itself and the products after recovery/disposal processes. The necessity of the
Page 15
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
research results both from the fact that fracturing fluids are produced using different chemical
substances and from geochemical differences of the drilled rock layers. The results of
laboratory analyses of this type of waste will determine whether the examined waste should
be classified as hazardous or non-hazardous and thus indicate potential ways of further
management, safe for the natural environment.
As has already been mentioned many times before, there are no guidelines for the scope of
testing the quality of a new type of waste such as flowback water. As a result, as part of the
project implementation, extensive laboratory tests were carried out on flowback water
samples coming from one of the drilling rigs in Poland. The results of laboratory tests allowed
verification of the initial basic scope of research proposed in Report D10.2 (Kukulska-Zając et
al., 2016) dedicated to waste generated during exploration and exploitation of unconventional
hydrocarbon deposits.
The range of physicochemical parameters, which should be determined in flowback water
samples, verified during the project implementation is presented in Table 3. The presented set
of tests includes typical indicators of environmental pollution, parameters defined by law for
waste in general and parameters, which should be additionally monitored in wastes such as
flowback water due to their specific nature.
Table 3. Range of determinations recommended for the flowback water quality test to assess potential
environmental impact.
No. Parameter Unit
General parameters
1. pH index -
2. specific conductance mS/cm
3. total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/l
4. total suspended solids (TSS) mg/l
5. dry residue mg/l
6. chemical oxygen demand (COD) mgO2/l
7. biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mgO2/l
8. total organic carbon (TOC) mg/l
Alkali or alkaline-earth metals and others
9. sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr) mg/l
10. aluminium (Al), iron (Fe) mg/l
Heavy metals
11. barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo), antimony (Sb),
total chromium (Cr), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), vanadium (V),
arsenic (As), cobalt (Co), selenium (Se), mercury (Hg), tin (Sn)
mg/l
Anions
12. chlorides (Cl-), bromides (Br-), fluorides (F-) mg/l
13. sulphates (SO42-), hydrogencarbonates (HCO3
-) mg/l
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
14. hydrocarbons C6-C12 mg/l
15. hydrocarbons C12-C35 mg/l
Aromatic hydrocarbons
16. monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX) mg/l
17. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) mg/l
Page 16
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
No. Parameter Unit
Other organic and inorganic parameters
18. ammonia nitrogen or total nitrogen mg/l
19. phenol index mg/l
20. anionic surfactants mg/l
21. alcohols (depending on the composition of the fracturing fluid) mg/l
22. petroleum ether extract or chloroform extract mg/l
In addition, such wastes should be subjected to toxicological and ecotoxicological tests, as it
was found that flowback water may pose a threat (in case of improper management) to living
organisms after they have leaked uncontrolled into the environment (Środowisko i prace
rozpoznawcze dotyczące gazu z łupków; wyniki badań środowiska gruntowo-wodnego,
powietrza, klimatu akustycznego, płynów technologicznych i odpadów [The environment and
shale gas exploration. Results of studies on the soil-water environment, ambient air, acoustic
climate, process fluids and wastes], 2015).
The range of determinations recommended for flowback water testing for potential
environmental impact presented in Table 3 is basically the same as that initially proposed in
Report D10.2 (Kukulska-Zając et al., 2016). The determination of sulphur compounds was
omitted in the revised scope, as the laboratory testing of these compounds in flowback water
has shown that the laboratory content of these compounds is low. The recommended range
was supplemented by determination of petroleum substances extracting by various types of
organic solvents.
It is worth mentioning that the recommended range includes the determination of parameters
which are used as good indicators in environmental monitoring studies. These parameters
include mainly specific conductance and chlorides content. The latter, due to its very high
concentrations in flowback water and its easy and rapid migration into the environment, is an
ideal indicator of the appearance of a first wave of potential pollution in the environment. The
scope of research presented in Table 3 also includes indications for determination of the
substances or components of flowback water, on the basis of which it is possible to assess the
usefulness of particular methods of initial treatment of such fluids. Thus, the suitability of
sedimentation or filtration as a pre-treatment method can be determined on the basis of total
suspended solids (TSS) content, while the content of petroleum substances extracting by
various types of organic solvents allows for an appropriate selection of fat separators to
protect the elements of the process line during treatment (Granops et al., 2013).
The studies conducted as part of this project (see Report D10.3, Chapter 4) (Kukulska-Zając
et al., 2017) have also shown that an equally important aspect as shale gas operations waste
scope of research is also the appropriate way of sampling for testing, sample preparation for
testing and selection of the applied analytical method. Laboratories' analytical methods shall:
have a defined uncertainty of measurement, as the uncertainty of measurement is the
only parameter that allows a fully objective comparison of the results obtained with
the results of other laboratories or regulatory limits. For the determination of
impurities in environmental samples with a complex matrix, this uncertainty shall not
exceed 30%;
have a correctly defined limit of quantification, which is particularly important when
determining the traces in flowback water samples. Correct definition of the limit of
Page 17
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
quantification also ensures that presence of an analyte above the limit of quantification
with an adequate acceptable uncertainty;
in case of determination of metals content of flowback water samples have a specific
procedure for preparation of the sample for testing, allowing correct determination of
total metals content in the sample.
The assessment of shale gas operations wastes in terms of environmental impact should be
conducted both on the basis of the results of recommended tests of physicochemical
parameters and on the basis of the analysis of the fluid composition used in the hydraulic
fracturing process. Knowledge of the composition of the fracturing fluid is important, as it
will allow us to supplement the recommended scope of research (Table 3) with possible
additional parameters, which may have a potentially negative impact on the environment.
4.3 Further management of waste
Volume and composition of flowback and produced water varies over the lifetime of the well.
Having information about quality and quantity of generated waste it is possible to select one
of the possible options of their further proper management. The main feature that makes the
further use of this type of waste difficult is high water content and the resulting consistency of
the waste (mostly liquid or semi-liquid). Another difficulty is that chemical composition of
the waste (e.g. high and variable contents of heavy metals and salts of some alkali elements in
the form of chlorides, sulphates or hydrogencarbonates) is highly variable and difficult to
predict.
In the USA, waste such as flowback water or produced water can be disposed in one of the
following ways:
disposal via surface discharge, underground injection or land application,
reuse/recycle flowback water in subsequent fracturing works,
transfer flowback water to a Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facility,
transfer flowback water to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) facility,
reuse produced water for beneficial purposes,
in selected areas, operators also use evaporation ponds (impoundments) for disposal of
produced water.
Disposal via underground injection is the most widespread method in the USA, but operators
increasingly try to implement reuse/recycle options for this type of waste management.
In Europe, disposal of flowback water by deep well injection is not used, although such a
method of use is permitted under European law. It may be possible where it is re-injected into
formations from which hydrocarbons have been extracted and will have no impact on the
status of water bodies or pose any risk to groundwater. Nor is this method recommended as
Best Available Technique (BAT) due to the high risk of pollution of the environment,
especially groundwater (Grant and Chisholm, 2016; Gomez et al., 2016). Other methods of
liquid waste management generated during shale gas operations in Europe are (Grant and
Chisholm, 2016; Gomez et al., 2016; Granops et al., 2013):
reuse on-site for the next hydraulic fracturing process. Reuse of flowback and
produced water arguably represents the most sustainable process in terms of water
resource use. However, this treatment requires pre-treatment (mechanical filtration,
neutralisation, oxidation, coagulation and sedimentation) of flowback water. However,
Page 18
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
it should be added that on-site treatment processes also reduce the risks associated
with transporting waste. Flowback water that is not suitable for reuse is classed as a
waste and must be sent to an appropriate permitted waste facility for treatment or
disposal;
transfer, treated or not treated on site, to wastewater treatment facilities or other waste
recovery or disposal facilities. Such installations should have permission to treatment
the appropriate mining waste code for flowback water;
transfer to a disposal facility for extractive waste.
In the latter two cases, waste must be transported. Spills or leaks could potentially occur
during the transportation. Preventative measures should be included in the waste management
plan.
In order to ensure optimal environmental safety, information should be collected not only on
the quantity and quality composition of flowback water, but also on the treatment and further
management of waste. In Poland, there is no obligation to collect and disclose complete
information on the exact history of waste, there is no obligation to obtain information on the
final location and method of waste recovery/disposal. Only qualitative and quantitative data
on each type of waste generated is mandatory. This is waste holders and waste producers
responsibility. However, obtaining and collecting data on the final management of waste
would be valuable information for local communities, obviously interested in their own safety
and the environment in their area, and would also facilitate control in the correct application
of procedures for the further management of waste authorised for this control body.
Page 19
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
5 RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Proper management of shale gas operations wastes is crucial, mainly due to the fact that they
are new, hardly recognized waste, and in addition flowback water is a very complex object for
testing, treatment or storage, due to the complexity and changeability of the matrix.
In Europe, waste generated during exploration and exploitation of gas from unconventional
hydrocarbon deposits are bounded by the same legal regulations as waste generated during
exploration and extraction of conventional hydrocarbon deposits. Therefore, for the waste
from exploration and exploitation of gas from shale formations there are no uniform
requirements regarding the scope of research on quality of this type of waste, guidelines for
their treatment, transportation, disposal and storage and need to disclose the results of
research on their quality. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement the existing legislation with
requirements on how to handle waste such as flowback and produced water, including
uniform requirements for quality testing of this waste.
Correct classification of waste (flowback and produced water) is very important for proper
further waste management. However, there are currently no uniform guidelines for classifying
this type of waste. However, it is important not to classify flowback water as a wastewater,
since it cannot be reused in this form in accordance with current legislation for hydraulic
fracturing. In Poland, flowback and produced water has so far been classified under code 01
05 99, i. e. as wastes not otherwise specified, and in the UK as waste under code 01 01 02, i.
e. wastes from mineral non-metalliferous excavation. Of course, if flowback or produced
water contains hazardous substances or components, then they should be classified as
hazardous waste. In view of the above, it should be concluded that there is a real need to
supplement the List of Waste with a new type of waste (i. e. flowback and produced water)
with a code that is suitable for both hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
Waste generated during exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits
is usually not inert waste and often indicates (depending on concentrations of individual
substances and chemicals contained in them) toxic or very toxic properties to aquatic
organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. The amount
of publicly available detailed information on the scope and results of shale gas operations
waste in Europe is low and selective, as is the amount of data on substances and chemical
compounds used in the preparation of process fluids. There is also no information available
on the amount of waste resulting from such works. Therefore, it is suggested that, more
broadly than before, data on the composition of the process fluids used in the drilling
operations and information on the composition and properties of the waste generated, as well
as information on how to further manage the waste, should be made public. Storage of this
type of information will allow us to make a clear statement whether possible environmental
pollution occurring even after time is related to shale gas operations.
Recommended, based on the results of this project, the scope of the determinations for testing
quality of flowback water for potential environmental impact should include: pH, specific
conductance, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), dry residue, total
organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), metals (including heavy metals), inorganic anions, hydrocarbons (including mono-
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), phenol index, ammonia nitrogen or total nitrogen,
Page 20
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
anionic surfactants, petroleum ether extract or chloroform extract and alcohols. The realized
project has also shown that not less important than the proper scope of research is also:
The method of sampling and preparing the sample for the tests, as it is this initial stage
of the study that has a significant influence on the obtained analysis results. The
method of sample preparation for the tests is particularly important during the
determination of metals content.
Selection of an appropriate analytical method, which should have an appropriately
defined limit of quantification and uncertainty, allowing for a correct comparison of
the obtained test results, e. g. with the criteria set out in the legal regulations and the
results obtained by different laboratories.
Therefore, further testing is needed to develop a flowback water sampling procedure for
laboratory testing (including the purpose and location of sampling before, after separator or
from the container) and to develop guidance on analytical methods dedicated to the
determination of individual substances and components in these fluids with very complex
matrix. Testing of such samples should not involve methods routinely used for testing water
quality.
There are several possibilities for managing waste generated during the exploration and
exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon deposits. The shale gas operations flowback
water produced can be reused on-site in the next hydraulic fracturing process. However, this
treatment requires pre-treatment (mechanical filtration, neutralisation, oxidation, coagulation
and sedimentation) of the flowback water. It can also be transferred (treated or not treated on-
site) to wastewater treatment facilities or other waste recovery or disposal facilities, or
transferred to a mining waste disposal facility. Disposal of flowback water by deep well
injection is not used, although such a method of disposal is permitted (under certain
conditions) in accordance with European law.
To sum up, it should be added that waste connected with shale gas operations should not enter
in an untreated form into the environment, even unintentionally, e. g. as a result of failure.
Flowback water should be used on site for further treatments whereas the transport of such
waste to other locations for reuse or to mining waste disposal facilities should be in
accordance with waste transport procedures. Only the proper treatment/disposal of these
fluids will guarantee safety for people and the environment.
Page 21
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
6 REFERENCES
Best Available Techniques Reference Document for the Management of Waste from the
Extractive Industries, Joint Research Centre, draft document, 2016.
Cluff, M.A., Hartsock, A., MacRae, J.D., Carter, K., Mouser, P.J. (2014) Temporal Changes
in Microbial Ecology and Geochemistry in Produced Water from Hydraulically
Fractured Marcellus Shale Gas Wells, Environmental Science & Technology, 48, p.
6508-6517.
Commission Decision 2009/335/EC of 20 April 2009 on technical guidelines for the
establishment of the financial guarantee in accordance with Directive 2006/21/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of waste from
extractive industries.
Commission Decision 2009/337/EC of 20 April 2009 on the definition of the criteria for the
classification of waste facilities in accordance with Annex III of Directive 2006/21/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of waste
from extractive industries.
Commission Decision 2009/358/EC of 29 April 2009 on the harmonization, the regular
transmission of the information and the questionnaire referred to Articles 22(1)(a) and
18 of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
management of waste from extractive industries.
Commission Decision 2009/359/EC of 30 April 2009 completing the definition of inert waste
in implementation of Article 22(1)(f) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council concerning the management of waste from extractive
industries.
Commission Decision 2009/360/EC of 30 April 2009 completing the technical requirements
for waste characterisation laid down by Directive 2006/21/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the management of waste from extractive industries.
Commission Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC
on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council.
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on
the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive
2004/35/EC (Official Journal 11.04.2006 UE L 102 with later amendments).
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008
on waste and repealing certain Directives (Official Journal 22.11.2008 UE L 312 with
later amendments).
Environment Agency, 2016, Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance, Version 1.
Gomez V.R., Fernandez L.V., Naranjo F.J.F. (2016) Sustainable alternatives for water
management related to shale gas activities in the European context, M4ShaleGas
project, Report D9.2.
Granops, M., Firlit, Z., Michelc, M.M., Granops, J. (2013) Oczyszczanie ścieków (płynu
zwrotnego) powstających po szczelinowaniu hydraulicznym [Treatment of wastewater
(flowback water) after hydrofracturing], Przem. Chem., 92, 5, 675.
Grant L., Chisholm A. (2016) Shale Gas and Water 2016. An independent review of shale gas
extraction in the UK and the implications for the water environment, The
CharteredInstitution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM).
Page 22
D10.5 Composition and management of waste from shale gas operations Copyright © M4ShaleGas Consortium 2015-2017
Klimkiewicz, A., Korczak, K. (2012) Technologiczne i środowiskowe aspekty
wykorzystywania wody w procesie wydobycia gazu łupkowego [Technological and
environmental aspects of water use in the extraction of shale gas], Research Reports
Mining and Environment, 3, p. 43-54.
Kukulska-Zając E., Król A., Dobrzańska M., Gajec M., Holewa-Rataj J., Mostowska J.
(2015) Literature review concerning drilling materials and management of wastes,
M4ShaleGas project, Report D10.1.
Kukulska-Zając E., Król A., Dobrzańska M., Gajec M., Holewa-Rataj J., Mostowska J.
(2016) Physicochemical parameters to assess harmfulness of flowback water and waste
relevant to shale gas operations, M4ShaleGas project, Report D10.2.
Kukulska-Zając E., Król A., Holewa-Rataj J., Dobrzańska M., Gajec M., Mostowska J.
(2017) Characteristics of fracturing fluids and flowback water with regard to their
harmfulness and hazard, M4ShaleGas project, Report D10.3.
Możliwości postępowania z płynem zwrotnym powstałym podczas procesu szczelinowania w
kontekście przepisów z zakresu gospodarki odpadami [Possible handling of flowback
water generated during the fracturing process in the context of waste management
regulations], 2014. Website: https://www.mos.gov.pl/srodowisko/odpady/odpady-z-
przemyslu/, accessed in September 2017.
Olsson, O., Weichgrebe, D., Rosenwinkel, K.H. (2013) Hydraulic fracturing wastewater in
Germany: composition, treatment, concerns. Environ. Earth Sci. 70, p. 3895–3906.
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16
December 2008 on classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures,
amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and its subsequent amendments (Official Journal of the
European Union, L 353/1).
Starzycka, A. (2012) Środowiskowe i prawne aspekty zagospodarowania odpadów
powstających w trakcie poszukiwania, rozpoznawania i wydobycia gazu z łupków
[Environmental and legal aspects of waste generated during exploration, identification
and extraction of shale gas], Poznań.
Starzycka, A. (2014) Gospodarka odpadami powstającymi podczas poszukiwania
węglowodorów ze złóż niekonwencjonalnych [Waste generated during exploration of
hydrocarbons from unconventional deposits], warsztaty „Gospodarka wodna i
gospodarka odpadami w procesie poszukiwania i wydobycia węglowodorów ze złóż
niekonwencjonalnych” [workshop "Water and waste management in the process of
exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons from unconventional deposits"], Gdańsk.
Środowisko i prace rozpoznawcze dotyczące gazu z łupków; wyniki badań środowiska
gruntowo-wodnego, powietrza, klimatu akustycznego, płynów technologicznych i
odpadów [The environment and shale gas exploration. Results of studies on the soil-
water environment, ambient air, acoustic climate, process fluids and wastes], 2015,
praca zbiorowa na zlecenie Ministerstwa Środowiska [collective work commissioned by
the Ministry of the Environment]. Website: http://www.gdos.gov.pl/gaz-z-lupkow,
accessed in September 2017.
top related